Comments

1. #1 justawriter

   October 30, 2012

   Do you mean “isn’t” in the last senence?

   – yes, thanks. –jh

2. #2 zach

   October 30, 2012

   So for anyone to argue that Sandy isn’t at least in part a product of climate change is just plain silly

   Actually THAT statement is just plain silly. Looking at ANY single weather event – no matter how powerful or unusual – tells one absolutely nothing at all about climate change.

3. #3 jyyh

   erimaassa.blogspot.fi

   October 31, 2012

   there’s some discussion of the blocking high from Greenland affecting the route of the hurricane, and if the high will be more common with the decrease of summer sea ice at Neven’s place. With Pacific side of the arctic getting more low pressure areas for the open water there the melt of the ice might move the entire Polar Cell of atmospheric circulation weighted more around Greenland. The eastern seaboard of North America has been consistently warmer in recent years so more northern hurricanes are possible. Why, in the previous hurricane seasons of 2010-2011, the fiercest storms have struck middle America, is imho harder to explain.

4. #4 Wow

   October 31, 2012

   “Looking at ANY single weather event – no matter how powerful or unusual – tells one absolutely nothing at all about climate change.”

   No, that was a silly comment.

   Nobody is looking at this one event. They are looking at this one event ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER EVENT and saying “This shouldn’t be happening *it didn’t happen before*”.

   Additionally, are you saying that the evident global warming that has happened is doing NOTHING to such events?

   That too is a VERY VERY silly statement.

5. #5 How Hurricane Sandy sobered us all, and what we should know. « The FuturityTimes

   November 1, 2012

   [...] Did Climate Change Supersize Hurricane Sandy? | Mother Jones [Class M] (scienceblogs.com) [...]

6. #6 Enzo

   Lugano, Switzerland

   November 5, 2012

   Hurricane Sandy, it was not a ‘superstorm”, it was a weak class 1 hurricane that morphed into a nor’easter. Unfortunately,the storm did devastate NJ and NYC, and my heart goes out to all those affected.

   However, the excessive damage was due to the track of the storm and the timing of the landfall, not from the inherent strength of the storm. Sandy’s track turned due west and made a direct hit on the NJ coast. To compound matters, the storm made landfull during high tide on a full moon, which added significantly to the storm surge that innundated our communities. Had this same storm made landfall during low tide, the damage would have been more localized to the immediate coastal areas.

   Northeast hurricanes are not all that rare. There were five hurricanes or tropical storms that hit the northeast in October or later in the 18th century, twelve in the 19th century, five in the 20th century and so far three in the 21st century.

7. #7 Wow

   November 6, 2012

   What an idiot you are.

   It is a superstorm because it is a Hurricane at all, off the coast of NYC and at the end of September and far far larger than most peak hurricane season storms off florida (where they are most prevalent and strongest).

   Have you seen the Great Red Spot on Jupiter?

   Massive isn’t it.

   Makes a storm here on earth look miniscule. Even a Cat 5 Hurricane.

   But we don’t use that to call a cat 5 hurricane a tiny storm because it is on Jupiter not on Earth.

   So the location of the storm matters when talking about its size.

   But no, you’re butthurt because your idiotic faith in rightwingnuts and denial of AGW has become untenable.

   Even in the face of it killing humans you wriggle to find some way to deny evidence because you’re a sociopathic idiot.

   And climate change means that what was “not all that rare” now becomes a common event.

   See that change in the climate of the Northeast?

   Used not to be a hurricane climate. Now it is.

   Climate.

   Changed.

   (PS go on, give the size strength and dates (INCLUDING MONTH) of these “not all that rare” storms).